Has this ever
happened to you? You share with someone you know information that you believe to
be important, relating documented evidence that you possess, even giving the
documentation to the person you’re speaking to. After listening politely and
reviewing the evidence, the person responds, “That’s your opinion.”

I do have
opinions, and I am not shy about voicing them if the situation appears right to
do so, but that’s not what we’re talking about. I know the difference between
statements based on evidence or facts and opinions. For a long time it seemed to
me as if many people were unclear of the distinction and this assumption
informed my response. I would point out that an opinion is a personal bias which
may or may not rest upon any evidence[1]
whereas what I had just done was to convey information and evidence without
injecting personal bias into the equation. This normally got me a blank look
from the person I was speaking with, and the blank look was often followed by
the assertion that it was all (apparently both my original information and my
definition of the word “opinion”) just my opinion. Even if the person
acknowledged my point about the difference between evidence and opinions, that
same person would often reiterate the charge later in the conversation. “That’s
your opinion,” the person would say, and wonder why my jaw dropped in
response.

I must have
been quite dense for a very long time.

The problem
wasn’t a lack of understanding on the part of the listener. It was a lack of
understanding, on my part, of what the listener was telling me. The listener was
saying, in effect, “I don’t care what the evidence says, I have my own opinion,
and I’m not going to change it regardless of whatever proof or evidence you
provide.” The person was trying to shut me out and shut me up, and I was the one
who didn’t get it. The funny thing is, I don’t think they really got it
either.

By labeling my
presentation as opinion, they sought to minimize or trivialize the impact of the
evidence, either on the grounds that opinions are generally worthless or,
conversely, going the cognitive relativism route and holding that all opinions
are equally valid[2].
Responding to these people as if they were sincere - they merely needed to be
shown that the information I imparted was of a higher standard than opinion -
changed the issue from consideration of the evidence to a question of what
constituted evidence. Their perhaps tacit goal of not having to deal with the
evidence was accomplished.

As I began to
catch on I tested various strategies to deal with the objection (That’s your opinion!) quickly so we could get on
with our discussion of the main point. I still assumed that the person was
sincere. It was, however, beginning to dawn on me that it might be the
conclusions that the evidence was forcing them to consider that was the problem,
and not the evidence itself. In order to avoid messy conclusions you must either
do away with the evidence or the messenger. If you can shoot the messenger
BEFORE the messages is delivered, you will never be forced to hear bad news, but
unfortunately killing the messenger is usually not an option. So you must make
the evidence go away before it upsets you too greatly. Here’s an example. Let’s
say my contention was that a certain person (let’s call him Adolph) was a Nazi,
and after my presentation “Him” says:

Him:That’s your
opinion!

Me:Ok, but could you
tell me which portion of what I just presented to you was opinion?

Him:All of it!

Me:Really? The
quotes I showed you wherein he said that he was a Nazi were

my
opinion?

Him:People are misquoted
all the time!

Me:The picture I
showed you of Adolph in an SS uniform… Was that my opinion?

Him:Photoshop!

Me:What about his
book “Why I Am a Nazi” subtitled “I, Adolf, Really Am a Nazi”? Was that my
opinion?

Him:It’s a novel. Haven’t
you ever heard of fiction?

Me:But it says on page
one, “This book about me, Adolph, being a Nazi is fact, not fiction at all, not
even a little bit. I’m a Nazi! I’m a Nazi! I’m a Nazi!” Now, that’s not my
opinion, is it?

Him:(Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!)

Me:So, we can
conclude that there is no doubt that Adolph is a Nazi, right?

Him:That’s your
opinion!

Notice how
calm and reasonable I was. Ok, maybe the example isn’t completely accurate, but
subjectively this is exactly how it often felt. The reality is that even if they
agreed, point by point, that nothing I said was my own opinion, and agreed that
every point was supported by strong evidence or fact, more often than not they
fell back on some form[3]
of “that’s your opinion”. Like:

-That’s how you see it.

-You have a right to think what you want, but so do
I.

-We can’t all see things like you do.

-You have your view, I have mine, and the bartender has
his, OK?

-Old dog? New Tricks? Sorry. (Or: “Guess I’m just set in
my ways.”)

-People shouldn’t talk about religion (politics,
etc.).

These sorts of
responses got me to begin doubting the sincerity of the responders. It couldn’t
be that they’re just trying to brush me off, could it? Reasonable, thinking
people cannot attach themselves to a position, and cling to it in spite of
mountains of evidence and plain common sense, can they? Intelligent people are
surely open to facts, logic and reason, right? I’m not punchy; I’m just slow.
The fault must lie within me, I thought. Somehow, in spite of approaching each
argument from several different perspectives and in several different ways, and
backed by numerous unimpeachable reference citations, I was failing to
communicate my argument effectively. If my rhetoric[4]
were more polished… If the logic of my assertions were more direct and easily
followed… If people actually liked me…

The problem
didn’t lie with me, although if people did like me it wouldn’t have hurt. I’ve
had more than one discussion with different institutional church “leaders” that
followed this pattern. The leader in question (let’s call him Nick O’Laitan, shall we?) was involved in X, say, and I would
spend an hour enumerating Scriptural reasons why the practice of X was a bad
thing. The verses at times followed the pattern of: “The Lord saith X shalt not be done by His
people,” 2YYYYYY 7:12. “The Lord
hates X,” ZZZZ 2:19. “If your brother is found to be doing X, admonish him in
private. If he stops doing X you have saved a brother. If he continues in X tell
it to the church, and if he won’t listen to the church tell the former brother
to hit the road.” YZYZ 4:18. I’m not kidding, not really. I’ve presented plain
speaking passages, in context and in harmony with the rest of Scripture, gone
over the passages one-by-one and presented documented, witnessed behavior which
was consistently and habitually practiced, that was a direct and flagrant
abrogation of the Word. I’ve made such presentations to nice people who were
sincerely concerned for the spiritual and even physical wellbeing of those who
were under their “pastoral care”, and who staunchly believed that they stood
squarely for the Word of God. You know what I heard as a reply? “That’s your
opinion.” “I interpret this differently.” “Tradition supports my view.” Perhaps
the only honest man who actually understood what I’d just done replied, “What
can I say? Your Pastor has feet of clay.” Not good enough, because he didn’t
actually change his behavior.

And that’s
really what we’re talking about, and why I thought to write about opinions. I
actually started writing this paper over a year ago, under the tongue-in-cheek
title “Opinions Are Wonderful Things,” but I bogged down after two pages. If
only my rhetoric were more polished, my logic simpler and more direct… yeah
right. What prompted me then to want to write was the reaction I’d continually
gotten from good, honest, sincere and well-meaning Christians whenever they
learned about what I believed concerning the institutional Church, the
Nicolaitan clergy and the Nicolaitan laity that keeps them in power, and
Churchianity in general[5].
No matter how you slice it, Scripture alone does not support the way Church is
done today, at least in
America, which
is really all I can personally attest to. In fact, much of what we call Church
today is diametrically opposed to the Church in the Bible unless you color your
Scriptural understanding with the writings of Church Fathers, Church Councils,
synods, tradition, the writings of the Reformers and Puritan and other so-called
Divines, the scribblings of theologians of various ilk, and the proclamations of
various and sundry Christian Superstars, authors, speakers, television and radio
personalities of today. I hope you have the giant 64-color pack with the crayon
sharpener, because that’s a lot of coloring.

The point of
all this is simple. After years of hearing, “Well, your opinion is way out
there,” or “D. James Kennedy has a different opinion,” or whoever believes this
or that ad-nauseam, I’ve finally become wise to what’s going on: they DON’T WANT
to accept any evidence that I present because they DON’T WANT to change the way
they’re doing things now, and I don’t entirely blame them. It’s comfortable and
familiar like a broken-in pair of Oxfords, like that easy chair that you just
can’t throw out in spite of the duck-taped tears in the fabric. There’s that
nice flow of the seasons: Advent with candles and holly, special Choir
arrangements and if you have enough creative types, a dramatic presentation or a
living manger, complete with live animals; Ascension, with more choir music,
palm fronds, and maybe a passion play with more live animals; all the new moms
stand and receive a gift, now old moms, now grandmoms; it’s your turn new dads,
old dads and gramps; VBS time, write scripts, rehearse songs, make T-shirts,
Jesus loves the little children, for the children we simplify - so the colors
represent the Gospel – the gospel that we should be sharing with the children’s
parents in the course of our daily lives; Independence day, flags and bunting,
potluck cookout, sack race, sparklers, and aren’t we blessed to be able to
worship as we do without jack-booted atheists banging on our doors; Harvest
time, lets dress up as Noah and the animals, oranges and browns and reds;
Thanksgiving, yes, thank the Lord for all the year’s blessings in case we forgot
to thank Him when they were received, and thanks to the lay people here who’ve
helped so much. How comforting are the weekly rhythms: the rituals; the building
with the steeple; Children and adults in Sunday School; the big old organ; the
altar; the pulpit; all rise; hymn number 198; deacons pass the plates;
Children’s Church; the sermon – tell them what you’re going to say – give them
an anecdote – make your points rhyme or do an acrostic – tell them what you just
told them; the benediction; handshake - good sermon Pastor. It’s all so nice and
the people – sure you only see most of them on Sundays, but they like you and
you like them, and if the car breaks down, or there’s water in the basement,
there’s someone you can call for help. Yeah, I get it. Yeah, I understand.
But…

I don’t want
to hear John MacArthur’s opinion or RC Sproul’s, nothing against them[6].
That’s their opinion, and it may even be an informed opinion, but what is it
informed by? The Word ALONE, or years of indoctrination in tradition and other
men’s opinions? Don’t read to me from Calvin or Luther. You want an opinion?
They didn’t stray too far from mother
Rome after all, and now their
descendents are drifting back into the orbit of the mother (Marian?) church.
Don’t quote Irenaeus or Polycarp or Clement of Rome or Zero of Mostel (that’s a
joke, ok?). Please, please don’t talk to me of
Nicaea or
Chalcedon or
Constantinople, and mention the word “tradition” at your
peril. What I want is what I give: show me facts, show me evidence from the only
reliable source of Truth – The Word of God. Let’s look at it together, along
with the context, and compare what we find with the rest that Scripture has to
say on the topic.

Then listen to
me, and if I present the case for church being a house-to-house gathering of the
family of believers, in an orderly but not rigidly ordered time of praise,
fellowship and especially building up the saints, and if I do it with Scripture
alone, rightly divided, don’t tell me it’s just my opinion. If you have an
answer that fits the criteria laid out here, I will certainly listen, and we can
talk.

I’ve made this
offer before, many times, so I don’t hold out much hope. Look, I’ve said from
the beginning that I don’t want people to believe ME. Lord forbid it! And I’m
the last person anyone should be following: I’ve never had a God-breathed
utterance or written a line of Scripture in my life. The only thing Scripture
tells me to persuade people about is the faith[7].
So really, I can show you what I am convinced is proved beyond doubt by the
evidence of Scripture, and you can decide for yourself, but you know what? I’m
not going to press the point or argue. I’m not leading anything but the life God
has given me, so whether you believe what I have to say or not is your choice
and between you and God. And you know what else? That’s my opinion.

—Synonyms 1. persuasion,
notion, idea, impression. Opinion,sentiment,view are terms for one's
conclusion about something. An opinion is a belief or
judgment that falls short of absolute conviction, certainty, or positive
knowledge; it is a conclusion that certain facts, ideas, etc., are probably true
or likely to prove so: political opinions; an opinion
about art; In my opinion this is true. Sentiment
(usually pl.) refers to a rather fixed conviction, usually based on
feeling or emotion rather than reasoning: These are my
sentiments. View is an estimate of something, an
intellectual judgment, a critical survey based on a mental examination,
particularly of a public matter: views on governmental
planning.

[2]
For the nitpickers who think that I should have written “epistemological
relativism”, which asserts that knowledge is relative, I submit that
epistemological relativism is merely a subgenre of cognitive relativism, the
relativity of truth. In any case, relativism is philosophical garbage and a way
of denying the absolute truth of the existence, plan and will of God.

[3]
Most people, once you’ve knocked the “opinion” evasion down are smart enough not
to use the word “opinion” again, even if they are effectively saying the same
thing.